Commit c84de70 (excluded_1(): support exclude files in index -
2009-08-20) tries to work around the fact that there is no
directory/file information in index entries, therefore
EXC_FLAG_MUSTBEDIR match would fail.
Unfortunately the workaround is flawed. This fixes it.
Reported-by: Thomas Rinderknecht <thomasr@sailguy.org>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Sparse checkout narrows worktree down based on the skip-worktree bit
before and after $GIT_DIR/info/sparse-checkout application. If it does
not have that bit before but does after, a narrow is detected and the
file will be removed from worktree.
New files added by merge, however, does not have skip-worktree bit. If
those files appear to be outside checkout area, the same rule applies:
the file gets removed from worktree even though they don't exist in
worktree.
Just pretend they have skip-worktree before in that case, so the rule
is ignored.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To avoid touching the worktree outside a sparse checkout,
when the update flag is enabled unpack_trees() clears the
CE_UPDATE and CE_REMOVE flags on entries that do not match the
sparse pattern before actually committing any updates to the
index file or worktree.
The effect on the index was unintentional; sparse checkout was
never meant to prevent index updates outside the area checked
out. And the result is very confusing: for example, after a
failed merge, currently "git reset --hard" does not reset the
state completely but an additional "git reset --mixed" will.
So stop clearing the CE_REMOVE flag. Instead, maintain a
CE_WT_REMOVE flag to separately track whether a particular
file removal should apply to the worktree in addition to the
index or not.
The CE_WT_REMOVE flag is used already to mark files that
should be removed because of a narrowing checkout area. That
usage will still apply; do not clear the CE_WT_REMOVE flag
in that case (detectable because the CE_REMOVE flag is not
set).
This bug masked some other bugs illustrated by the test
suite, which will be addressed by later patches.
Reported-by: Frédéric Brière <fbriere@fbriere.net>
Fixes: http://bugs.debian.org/583699
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The purpose of this clearing is, as explained in comment, because
verify_*() may set those bits before apply_sparse_checkout() is
called. By that time, it's not clear whether an entry will stay in
checkout area or out. After $GIT_DIR/info/sparse-checkout is applied,
we know what entries will be in finally. It's time to clean unwanted
bits.
That works perfectly when checkout area remains unchanged. When
checkout area changes, apply_sparse_checkout() may set CE_UPDATE
or CE_WT_REMOVE to widen/narrow checkout area. Doing the clearing
after apply_sparse_checkout() may clear those widening/narrowing
bits unexpectedly.
So, only do that on entries that are not affected by checkout area
changes (i.e. skip-worktree bit does not change after
apply_sparse_checkout).
This code does not actually fix anything though, just
future-proof. The removed code and the narrow/widen code inside
apply_sparse_checkout are currently independent (narrow code never
sets CE_REMOVE, widen code sets CE_UPDATE, but ce_skip_worktree()
would be false).
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Tweak the rest of the script to more closely follow the test
style guide. Guarding setup commands with test_expect_success
makes it easy to see the scope in which some particular data is
used; removal of whitespace after >redirection operators is just
for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We should avoid duplicate test numbers, since things like
GIT_SKIP_TESTS consider something like t1009.5 to be
unambiguous.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
